May 2017

05/31/2017

Pregnant women and new mothers are suffering increasing levels of unfair treatment at work, including cuts in hours, being put on zero-hours contracts or even forced out of their job, a report has revealed.

Citizens Advice warned of a growing problem of new and expectant mothers facing discrimination. The charity said there had been a 25% increase in people seeking workplace advice on pregnancy and maternity issues in the past year, with more than 22,000 visits to its website.

Evidence from Citizens Advice included pregnant women and new mothers having their working hours cut, being put on to zero-hours contracts, being pressured to return to work early from maternity leave and, in some cases, forced out of their jobs.

I recently was contacted by Sherman Law PLLC and asked to post a guest blog on this topic. I am delighted to do so because the information can help pregnant women who feel discriminated against.

In 1978 the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was passed, protecting women from being fired or discriminated against due to pregnancy. Yet in 2016, the EEOC received almost 3,500 pregnancy discrimination charges. There were more cases of pregnancy discrimination filed in 2016 than in 1992. And those are just the cases that were filed, not taking into account the thousands of women who never moved forward with complaints. Startling, to say the least.

Pregnancy discrimination can take many different forms. In some cases, mothers return to work after their maternity leave ends only to find out they have been demoted or placed in a new position. In other cases, a woman is fired simply for announcing her pregnancy. That type of case seems almost too blatant. But shockingly enough, it happens. And then there are countless other situations of pregnancy discrimination that occur every day in U.S. companies.

What the Law Says

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 was enacted to ensure that pregnant employees or “women affected by childbirth” are treated the same as childless workers. More recently the EEOC updated its expectations and guidelines to make clear that pregnant workers with a medical condition such as gestational diabetes, should be granted reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disability Act.

Far too often, employers refuse to grant pregnant workers accommodations based on medical needs. A problem this recent update by the EEOC hopes to curb.

The “Motherhood Penalty”

Studies have shown that mothers start at a lower pay than their coworkers, make less money over time, and they receive raises and promotions less often than their colleagues—that is, when they’re kept around.” Employers and co-workers also commonly believe, incorrectly, that mothers don’t work as hard and aren’t as capable as their male or single women colleagues.

“The “motherhood penalty” is alive and well. When sociologist Shelley Correll and her colleagues sent out more than 1,200 fake résumés to employers in a large Northeastern city, mothers were significantly less likely than either childless women or fathers with identical qualifications to get interviews,” said the Washington Post.

A University of New Mexico study, reported by NPR, found that moms earn 14% less than childless women. Women also fall short, across every sector, when it comes to occupying leadership positions. The bias towards working mothers and women is evident, yet the perceptions are unfounded. In fact, many studies have shown quite the opposite. A Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis study concluded that mothers were actually more productive in their jobs than childless women.

In the News

It’s companies of all sizes and across every industry that are being accused of pregnancy discrimination. Since 2014, according to the EEOC, pregnancy discrimination resolutions have increased 17%. In the summer of 2015, AutoZone was ordered to pay an unprecedented $185 million in punitive damages to a former employee who claimed that after she became pregnant she was demoted, relocated and her wages cut. When she returned and asked for her job back her supervisor refused to promote her. Ultimately, she was fired.

These types of situations are all too common. Unfortunately, many women don’t want to go through with a formal complaint or workplace lawsuit, which only perpetuates the situation and allows the mistreatment of pregnant women to continue and misperceptions of working mothers to prevail.

Why Many Women Don’t File Complaints

Unfortunately, many women don’t file complaints or stand up for their rights when faced with pregnancy discrimination. The reasons are many but the top 4 most common reasons women site are:

Feeling guilty

Believing that filing a law suit against their employer will ruin their career

An ignorance on the law

Don’t think they have enough evidence

While pregnancy discrimination filings are going up each year, the reasons listed above stop a large majority of women from moving forward with a complaint. For these women, the alternative is usually to either find a new job or accept an uncomfortable or hostile working environment.

If you believe you are being discriminated against based on pregnancy or because you are a mother, it is important that you stand up for your rights. Every time a woman speaks up, she makes it easier for other working mothers. And with pregnancy discrimination on the rise there has never been a more crucial time for women to stand up for their rights and fight back against discriminatory practices.

Sherman Law, PLLC, located in Portsmouth, NH, represents companies and employees in all types of employment-related matters, including claims involving sexual harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, and discrimination. The original article appeared in NH Labor News.

05/19/2017

I have previously blogged about millennials and their workplace needs. This blog updates an earlier one and discussed information provided by Loyalty Works.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs has been around a long time. It describes the basic needs of individuals to be happy and fulfilled in life. Loyalty Works describes the expectations of millennials from their work experience.

Millennials are like no generation before them. They look to meet their own needs first before contributing to meeting those of an employer. Indeed, they are not likely to stay with a job unless their basic needs are met and self-actualization is nourished.

We assume the basic needs are met in most job experiences. Maslow’s hierarchy holds that physiological needs are the foundation for all other needs. This means the need for food, water, and shelter are basic to sustain life. Safety and security come next. The employment experience must provide a sufficient income and cover basic health needs for employees to achieve higher levels of satisfaction.

It is important to point out, unlike previous generations, the pursuit of wealth is not the driving force in the workplace. Instead, Millennials look for fulfilling experiences, opportunities for growth and development, satisfying work-team engagement, and a social networking environment that enhances the work experience.

Millennials spend more time at work than previous generations, in part because of the social aspect of jobs and the workplace. Working closely in teams draws Millennials closer together. Social ties lead to emotional experiences and the opportunity to build relationships. They inform personal experiences and contribute to a satisfying work experience.

Millennials are more likely to meet their mate at work than previous generations, and they are open to workplace dating experiences. Employers need to support Millennials’ need for a sense of connection from work. This is essential to climbing the ladder to the next level of needs.

Millennials do not see the potential red flags of having personal relationships in the workplace. They do not stop and think that one participant or another may evaluate job performance of the other down the road. What happens if the dating relationship goes south? Well, Millennials do not think that far in advance because they live in the here and now.

The top two levels of the ladder are the trickiest. Unless the three basic needs are met first, Millennials are not likely to achieve self-esteem from the job. They need to be respected by their peers, gain confidence on the job, and achieve success as they know it. Employers should target meeting these needs to have satisfied employees. If they are not met, then Millennials may leave their job and go on to another employer that might satisfy these higher-level needs.

Unlike previous generations, Millennials do not feel a loyalty to their employer above all else. Their loyalty is to themselves and satisfying their own needs from their workplace experiences. They are more likely to become loyal to their employer if their own needs are met first.

Millennials are fueled by passion for whatever they do. They are driven at work by passion for social causes – i.e., sustainability. They believe in what they do and want to work with like-minded individuals.

They thirst for a sense of belonging from their work experiences. A fulfilling a work experience fosters self-esteem and creates a pathway to self-actualization.

Maslow’s Hierarchy should be ingrained in the work culture. Employers must realize that Millennials are a different breed than previous generations. They have grown up with the Internet providing their window to the world. They expect the workplace experience to be engaging and provide time for social networking.

Millennials place purpose ahead of profits. They value social entrepreneurship. They ask: What does the employer stand for? What is their purpose in meeting the needs of stakeholders? How can this contribute to my need for meaning and maximizing my inner potential? These are questions Millennials ask before determining whether self-actualization is a realistic expectation from the job.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on May 19, 2017. Sign up for my Newsletter and take the Ethics IQ Test.

05/10/2017

Let’s face it. We’re all fed up with the airlines and our treatment on planes. We didn’t need three incidents to remind us about it. We are oftentimes shocked by the coldness of gate attendants and onboard staff. We’re repulsed by the excessive baggage fees and the delays, due in part to the checked baggage fees that promote more carry ones, more delays in taking off, and more late flights.

The incident on a United Express flight where a passenger, David Dao, was forcibly removed from a flight by officers of the Chicago Department of Aviation to make way for United pilots on another flight disgusted us all. What’s worse, the airline tried to shift the blame to another airline at first saying that it was a Republic Airlines flight. Of course, Republic is a partner airline with United so that excuse is lame. United CEO Oscar Munoz appeared to blame Dao calling him “disruptive and belligerent.” That didn’t go over well with the public after watching the horrific video.

United has already settled with Dao. The agreement is confidential. I figure it’s in the millions.

Incredibly, less than one month later, Delta Airlines forced a family off an overnight flight from Maui to California. A video shows crew agents telling the father they would put the parents in jail and place their children in foster care. This is unfathomable. The lack of common sense and common decency is inexplicable. Delta quickly offered compensation and an apology to Brian Schwartz and his family after he posted on the eight-minute video on You Tube.

These incidents remind me of a basic truth in ethics, which is ethics is about what you when no one is looking. I’m sure the security officials at the United incident and crew of Delta didn’t expect to be seen on You Tube and their irresponsible behavior unmasked. This makes me wonder about the training on these airlines. Clearly, they fail to see the public good aspect of their service as a high-priority ethical value. They simply act in their own interests.

The American Airlines incident last week is different because it deals with an Australian man who claims to have been “crushed” on a plane by large seat mates on a flight from Los Angeles to Sydney. The passenger alleges he had to contort his body within the cramped space caused by the intrusion of grossly obese passengers sitting next to him. He claims to have aggravated his existing condition of curvature of the spine. His case is a bit suspicious because he claimed he was crushed by two large passengers, yet he was in a window seat. And it took about one year to plead his case. It would appear he is trying to cash in on the public’s frustration about the United and Delta experiences.

I mention the American incident because the airline just said it will shrink the space between most rows from 31 inches to 30 inches on Boeing 737 jetliners. At least three rows will have only 29 inches, allowing American to better compete with discount airlines such as Spirit and Frontier. American is arguably the worst airline I’ve ever flown on. Many of its flights do not offer seat-back entertainment, presumably because most passengers bring on their own devices to stream music and videos. That’s a convenient excuse for poor customer service.

The one common denominator in these incidents is they are U.S.-owned airlines. You don’t find such reprehensible behavior on foreign airlines. Based on Skytrax Airline Awards for passenger satisfaction, you have to go to #25 to find a U.S.-owned carrier (Virgin America) then #34 (Delta). J.D. Power has recently reported an uptick in satisfactions, especially Alaska Airlines, Jet Blue and Southwest. Still, U.S. Carriers have a long way to go to meet the level of service expected by passengers and met by most overseas carriers.